I deduce you don't understand it either, something to do with ... lack of capacity?

You've not demonstrated that you are able to make accurate deductions.

Evolution isn't complicated in principle; where you have accrued genetic differences from one generation to another and there are according variances in survival, evolution will simply follow. You have, and there are, so it does. There's really no room for discussion on the matter.

I have heard the wonderful scientists are now preparing to shine the light on that same fly's to see if they will adapt or re-evolve eyes to see?

No no... we don't want them to re-evolve eyes... that's child play as they already have the DNA to do that... they need to take a species that has never had eyes, or any optical pick up, and shine a light to see if it can evolve eyes or some optical detection.

How are you missing the point that micro evolution and macro evolution are exactly the same thing?

You are incapable of accepting this, not because it's a flawed notion, but because you have decided, before the fact, that macro evolution is impossible (by way of trying to define it as something it is not).

Your comment about books is a strawman, a distraction that is entirely irrelevant to the point being made in the image I posted.

The different colours represent 'macro' evolution, and the gradation between the colours demonstrates how 'macro' evolution is simply a lot of 'micro' evolution piled up.

Macro-evolution could be micro-evolution piled up, or it could be not. It is thus an assumption on your part.

To insist micro and macro-evolution is the same thing is disengenious on your part. You are just reinforcing the ambiguity surrounding the theory of evolution and confusing guys, like the OP, who doesn't differentiate between the two, and thus doesn't reason clearly.

Macro-evolution could be micro-evolution piled up, or it could be not. It is thus an assumption on your part.

To insist micro and macro-evolution is the same thing is disengenious on your part. You are just reinforcing the ambiguity surrounding the theory of evolution and confusing guys, like the OP, who doesn't differentiate between the two, and thus doesn't reason clearly.

Macro-evolution could be micro-evolution piled up, or it could be not. It is thus an assumption on your part.

To insist micro and macro-evolution is the same thing is disengenious on your part. You are just reinforcing the ambiguity surrounding the theory of evolution and confusing guys, like the OP, who doesn't differentiate between the two, and thus doesn't reason clearly.

The term 'macroevolution' as used and understood scientifically is simply evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed. Because there is no known barrier to large scale change, and because the accumulation of change is expected, microevolution - which no remotely sane person would argue against - quite simply leads to eventual macroevolution.

If you want to categorise something as being disingenuous it is the hackneyed creationist tactic of simply redefining macroevolution as evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been, and practically cannot have been, directly observed. Your tack on the matter is hardly surprising.

Is it just me or are Christians getting dumber? Compared to the posters in this thread Ekstasis was a frikin genius.

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION, DO A COUPLE OF GOOGLE SEARCHES. READ 20 ARTICLES, NOT THE ONE POSTED BY A BRAIN DEAD TRUTH BURYING CHRISTIAN SOCIETY OF DENIALISTS.

I have to agree with this. I know people tend to get alll defensive when you call them stupid (even if they clearly are), but are you freaking kidding me? The only people who don't accept evolution are those who don't understand it, and they normally flatly refuse to even find out what they're attacking. I predict imminent massive butthurt and subsequent thread closure.

I'm also interested in why they disagree with all the science, even if they have no clue about it. Why would there be some big conspiracy, what are the "evil scientists" trying to achieve by making up mountains of evidence that the earth is over 4 billion years old, or where the different forms of life we have come from. What do they have to gain?

...if life is going to exist in a Universe of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion.

Because to accept evolution, means to accept that man is just another animal, not special (although religion and evolution can be and are reconciled by billions of religious people), unique and hand-crafted by god.